Barracuda-authorized-partner.com

The timeline behind barracuda-authorized-partner.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Barracuda Networks, Inc. v. Nick Pitzaferro, A5 Capital Partners LLC Case No. D2026-2010 1. The Parties Complainant is Barracuda Networks, Inc., United States of America (U.S.), represented by KXT LAW, LLP, U.S. Respondent is Nick Pitzaferro, A5 Capital Partners LLC, U.S. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <barracuda-authorized-partner.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 8, 2026. On May 11, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on May 21, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 22, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 16, 2026. The Center notified Respondent’s default on June 25, 2026. Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on the same day representing that the website associated with the Domain Name has “been down for a long time.” On the same day, the Center sent the Parties an email regarding possible settlement, but Complainant did not request suspension of the proceeding. page 2 The Center appointed Harrie R. Samaras as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,715,332 (registered April 7, 2015) for the BARRACUDA mark (the “BARRACUDA Mark” or the “Mark”). It has offered goods and services (e.g., computer software, educational services related to computer security, design and development of electronic data security systems) under the BARRACUDA Mark since at least as early as December 2002. Complainant also owns the <barracuda.com> domain name which resolves to a website where it sells its goods and services (“Complai nant’s Website”). The Domain Name was registered on April 1, 2026. It currently resolves to a page stating: “Brand Not Found. This domain is not configured for any brand store. Please check the URL and try again.” At least as early as when the Complaint was filed, the Domain Name resolved to a website (the “Website” or “Respondent’s Website”) that appeared to be a commercial storefront selling Complainant’s products and services. Throughout the Website it referred prominently not only to Complainant Barracuda Networks, but also represented itself as an authorized partner of Complainant (e.g., “Barracuda Networks Authorized Partner Store,” “Barracuda Networks Authorized Partner Solutions,” “Shop Barracuda Networks Authorized Partner products with instant quotes,”, and “Why Barracuda Networks Authorized Partner”). The Website was also using the BARRACUDA Mark repeatedly, for example, in selling products (e.g., “Barracuda Backup Server 1091 IR SUB 1MO”) and using Complainant’s product serial numbers. Like Complainant’s Website, the Website used similar hues of blue as background colors, on tabs and in text, as well as using a darker background with lighter text in places. The Website also used a design logo that Complainant uses, in a similar color blue. Like Complainant’s Website, the Website advertised solutions, products, pricing, custom quotes and support. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BARRACUDA Mark because it incorporates the BARRACUDA Mark and places it at the beginning of the Domain Name, ensuring that the Mark is the dominant source-identifying element. The additional terms “authorized” and “partner” do not dispel confusing similarity because they are subordinate to the Mark and merely describe, or purport to describe, Respondent’s relationship with Complainant. The Domain Name signals to consumers falsely that Respondent has a formal relationship with Complainant through an approved partner, reseller, or affiliate channel. The hyphens do not alter the analysis because they simply separate the words “Barracuda”, “authorized”, and “partner.” The “.com” generic Top-Level Domain does not affect the comparison because it is disregarded as a standard technical requirement of domain-name registration. Respondent is not, and has never been, commonly known by the name Barracuda or by the Domain Name, whether as an individual, business, or other organization. Complainant has never licensed, authorized, sponsored, approved, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BARRACUDA Mark, register a domain name incorporating the Mark, or hold itself out as an “authorized partner” of Complainant. Respondent registered the Domain Name long after Complainant established superior rights in the Mark through registration and longstanding use, therefore Respondent cannot derive rights or legitimate interests from its unauthorized appropriation of the Mark. Respondent’s false claim of authorized-partner status independently defeats any claim of rights or legitimate interests. page 3 Also, Respondent is not making a bona fide use of the Domain Name in conjunction with a website that looks like Complainant’s Website and has numerous references representing that Respondent has a formal business relationship with Complainant for this was calculated to divert customers away from Complainant’s Website to Respondent’s Website. Nor can Respondent establish rights or legitimate interests through its purported sale of Barracuda subscriptions because Complainant licenses its subscriptions and does not permit unauthorized transfer or resale. Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its Mark. The Domain Name incorporates the BARRACUDA Mark in its entirety and adds the terms “authorized” and “partner,” which expressly refer to a commercial relationship with Complainant. Respondent’s Website confirms that Respondent was targeting Complainant as it repeatedly identifies itself as an authorized partner of Complainant, advertises “Barracuda Networks Authorized Partner Solutions,” and offers Barracuda-branded products, pricing, quotes, sales contact, sign-in, and add-to-cart functionality. Respondent’s selection of the Domain Name was calculated to exploit Complainant’s Mark and the trust associated with Complainant’s authorized partner network. Respondent’s false claim of authorized-partner status is evidence of bad faith. How Respondent presents itself on the Website as described above is designed to make users believe Respondent is sponsored, affiliated, endorsed, or authorized by Complainant, and to convert that confusion into commercial gain. Respondent’s imitation of Complainant’s website presentation further confirms bad faith as part of an impersonation strategy. Also, Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad-faith diversion because Respondent uses the Domain Name to intercept users seeking Complainant’s Website and routes them to Respondent’s unauthorized commercial storefront. Respondent’s Website is further evidence of bad faith use insofar as it creates a phishing and fraud risk. The Website invites users to “Sign In,” request quotes, contact sales, and add BARRACUDA-branded products to a cart, all while falsely presenting Respondent as a BARRACUDA-authorized partner. Those functions create a risk that users seeking Complainant’s legitimate channels will submit credentials, contact information, payment details, or purchase inquiries to Respondent under the mistaken belief that they are dealing with Complainant or an approved BARRACUDA partner. Respondent is inserting itself into Complainant’s controlled channel structure and presenting itself as a reseller or partner authorized to sell, price, quote, provide, and support BARRACUDA products and subscriptions. By doing so, Respondent seeks to profit commercially from the trust, reputation, and channel goodwill associated with the BARRACUDA Mark while undermining Complainant’s ability to manage who may represent the brand, how BARRACUDA subscriptions are offered, and what customer experience is associated with Complainant’s products. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions but sent an email communication to the Center on June 25, 2026, representing that the website associated with the Domain Name has “been down for a long time”. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. page 4 Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “authorized” and “partner” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Similarly, the hyphens do not alter the analysis because they simply separate the Mark from the additional terms “authorized,” and “partner.” The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as passing off as an authorized partner of Complainant and misrepresentation of a commercial relationship with Complainant and of the authority to grant subscriptions, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent registered the Domain Name only recently while Complainant has been using the Mark for many years. That Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its Mark is established by: (1) the Domain Name incorporates the BARRACUDA Mark in its entirety and adds the terms “authorized” and “partner,” which suggests a commercial relationship with Complainant, when none exists. In fact, the Website confirms that Respondent was targeting Complainant as it repeatedly identifies itself as an authorized partner of Complainant and offers BARRACUDA-branded products and subscriptions; (2) the Website uses various aspects of Complainant’s Website as described above (e.g., the Mark, same “teeth” logo, same or similar colors, and page 5 same product numbers); and (3) Respondent has not come forward with any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent’s false claim of authorized-partner status is evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, how Respondent presents itself on the Website as described above is designed to make Internet users believe Respondent is affiliated with Complainant and authorized to sell Complainant’s products, services and subscriptions for its own commercial gain to the detriment of Complainant and partners legally authorized by Complainant. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a page like the one described above) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of Complainant’s Mark and the composition of the Domain Name (i.e., adding “authorized” and “partner”), and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as passing off as an authorized partner of Complainant and misrepresentation of a commercial relationship with Complainant and of the authority to grant subscriptions, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <barracuda-authorized-partner.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Harrie R. Samaras/ Harrie R. Samaras Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.